AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of heart failure from high-impact journals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of interventions. We aimed to perform the first AMSTAR 2-based quality assessment of heart failure-related studies.Methods
Eleven high-impact journals were searched from 2009 to 2019. The included studies were assessed on the basis of 16 domains. Seven domains were deemed critical for high-quality studies. On the basis of the performance in these 16 domains with different weights, overall ratings were generated, and the quality was determined to be "high," "moderate," "low," or "critically low."Results
Eighty-one heart failure-related SRs with MAs were included. Overall, 79 studies were of "critically low quality" and two were of "low quality." These findings were attributed to insufficiency in the following critical domains: a priori protocols (compliance rate, 5%), complete list of exclusions with justification (5%), risk of bias assessment (69%), meta-analysis methodology (78%), and investigation of publication bias (60%).Conclusions
The low ratings for these potential high-quality heart failure-related SRs and MAs challenge the discrimination capacity of AMSTAR 2. In addition to identifying certain areas of insufficiency, these findings indicate the need to justify or modify AMSTAR 2's rating rules.
SUBMITTER: Li L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9308914 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBreast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making.ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of the corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included.ResultsAmong the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score of ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (P = 0.03).ConclusionsThe methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.
| S-EPMC8259036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOver the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and methodsThis was a methodological study. We aimed the most visible Portuguese medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search (through PUBMED). We included systematic reviews published up to August 2020. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.ResultsSixty-six systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n = 53; 80.3%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Up to 2010 there was a steady increase in the number of systematic reviews published, followed by a period of great variability of publication, ranging from 1 to 10 in a given year. According to the systematic reviews' typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness/efficacy of health interventions (n = 27; 40.9%). General and Internal Medicine (n = 20; 30.3%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n = 46; 69.7%) were rated as being of "critically low-quality".ConclusionsThere were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results. Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.
| S-EPMC8996638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Use of a risk of bias (ROB) tool has been encouraged and advocated to reviewers writing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias are included in the Cochrane ROB tool. It is important to know how this specific tool for assessing ROB has been applied since its release. Our objectives were to evaluate whether and to what extent the new Cochrane ROB tool has been used in Chinese journal papers of acupuncture. METHODS: We searched CBM, TCM database, CJFD, CSJD, and the Wanfang Database from inception to March 2011. Two reviewers independently selected SRs that primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion, from which the data was extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 836 SRs were identified from the search, of which, 105 were included and four are awaiting assessment. Thirty-six of the 105 SRs were published before release of the Cochrane ROB tool (up to 2009). Most used the Cochrane Handbook 4.2 or Jadad's scale for risk or quality assessment. From 2009 to March 2011 69 SRs were identified. While "risk of bias" was reported for approximately two-thirds of SRs, only two SRs mentioned use of a "risk of bias tool" in their assessment. Only 5.8% (4/69) of reviews reported information on all six domains which are involved in the ROB tool. A risk of bias graph/summary figure was provided in 2.9% (2/69) of reviews. Most SRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, few reviews (5.8%; 4/69) described selective reporting or other potential sources of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The Cochrane "risk of bias" tool has not been used in all SRs/MAs of acupuncture published in Chinese Journals after 2008. When the ROB tool was used, reporting of relevant information was often incomplete.
| S-EPMC3235108 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrognosis research refers to the investigation of association between a baseline health state, patient characteristic and future outcomes. The findings of several prognostic studies can be summarized in systematic reviews (SRs), but some characteristics of prognostic studies may result in difficulties when performing the analyses. This study aimed to investigate trends in the volume and quality of SRs of prognostic studies in the literature.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review in five high-impact clinical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, JAMA, and Stroke) to identify SRs of prognosis studies focused on fundamental prognosis research and prognostic factor research published between 2000 and 2012. We excluded studies of clinical prediction guides or implementation studies. The quality of the SRs was rated based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the PRISMA checklists.ResultsOver the 13-year period, 1065 SRs were published. Of these, 198 were SRs of prognosis studies. The proportion of all SRs to published articles increased from 0.86% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2012. Likewise, the proportion of prognosis SRs to all SRs increased from 10.3% in 2000 to 17.7% in 2012. MOOSE and PRISMA mean summary scores consistently increased over time for all journals, indicating that the quality of reporting in these SRs has steadily improved. However, several items were not consistently well reported by investigators.ConclusionsThis study shows that there is a growing number of SRs of prognosis studies. However, the quality is suboptimal when assessed with the generic reporting guidelines for observational studies. New reporting guidelines and risk of bias tools for prognosis studies are needed to improve the quality of future research in this field.
| S-EPMC6460771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates.MethodsAll SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007-Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided.Results129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5-9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21-25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40-1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.ConclusionThere is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF.
| S-EPMC4361663 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.MethodsThis study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2009 (n = 211) and 2012-2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.ResultsThe number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.ConclusionFollowing the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.
| S-EPMC10721095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal. In September 2017, AMSTAR 2 was published as an updated version of the tool. This mixed-methods study aimed to analyze the extent of the AMSTAR 2 uptake and explore potential barriers to its uptake.MethodsWe analyzed the frequency of AMSTAR or AMSTAR 2 use in articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We surveyed authors who have used AMSTAR but not AMSTAR 2 in the analyzed time frame to identify their reasons and barriers. The inclusion criterion for those authors was that the month of manuscript submission was after September 2017, i.e. after AMSTAR 2 was published.ResultsWe included 871 studies. The majority (N = 451; 52%) used AMSTAR 2, while 44% (N = 382) used AMSTAR, 4% (N = 31) used R-AMSTAR and others used a combination of tools. In 2018, 81% of the analyzed studies used AMSTAR, while 16% used AMSTAR 2. In 2019, 52% used AMSTAR, while 44% used AMSTAR 2. Among articles published in 2020, 28% used AMSTAR, while AMSTAR 2 was used by 69%. An author survey indicated that the authors did not use AMSTAR 2 mostly because they were not aware of it, their protocol was already established, or data collection completed at the time when the new tool was published. Barriers towards AMSTAR 2 use were lack of quantitative assessment, insufficient awareness, length, difficulties with a specific item.ConclusionIn articles published in 2018-2020, that were submitted to a journal after AMSTAR 2 tool was published, almost half of the authors (44%) still used AMSTAR, the old version of the tool. However, the use of AMSTAR has been declining in each subsequent year. Our survey indicated that editors and peer-reviewers did not ask the authors to use the new version of the tool. Few barriers towards using AMSTAR 2 were identified, and thus it is anticipated that the use of the old version of AMSTAR will continue to decline.
| S-EPMC8996416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study designA systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs).ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument.MethodsWe identified the PubMed indexed journals devoted to spine surgery research in 2018. All SRs of spine surgical interventions from those journals were critically appraised for quality independently by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. We calculated the percentage of SRs achieving a positive response for each AMSTAR 2 domain item and assessed the levels of confidence in the results of each SR.ResultsWe identified 28 SRs from 4 journals that met our criteria for inclusion. Only 49.5% of the AMSTAR 2 domain items satisfied the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Critical domain items were satisfied less often (39.1%) compared with noncritical domain items (57.3%). Domain items most poorly reported include accounting for individual study risk of bias when interpreting results (14%), list and justification of excluded articles (18%), and an a priori establishment of methods prior to the review or registered protocol (18%). The overall confidence in the results was rated "low" in 2 SRs and "critically low" in 26.ConclusionsThe credibility of a SR and its value to clinicians and policy makers are dependent on its methodological quality. This appraisal found significant methodological limitations in several critical domains, such that the confidence in the findings of these reviews is "critically low."
| S-EPMC7359690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMany meta-analyses have been conducted on a wide array of topics, and many of these have focused on treatment efficacy of drugs or bias in interventional studies on a specific topic.ObjectiveTo examine the factors associated with having a positive study conclusion in meta-analyses in the field of oncology.Evidence reviewAll meta-analyses published between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021, on 5 oncology journal websites were identified and study characteristics, study results, and information on study authors were abstracted. The meta-analysis authors' conclusions were coded as positive, negative, or equivocal, and each article subject matter was coded as one that could affect profits and marketing of a company. Whether an association existed between study characteristics and authors' conclusions was also examined.FindingsDatabase searches resulted in 3947 potential articles, of which 93 meta-analyses were included in this study. Of the 21 studies with author funding from industry, 17 studies (81.0%) reported favorable conclusions. Of the 9 studies that received industry funding, 7 (77.8%) reported favorable conclusions, and of the 63 studies that did not have author or study funding from industry, 30 (47.6%) reported favorable conclusions. Studies that were funded through nonindustry sources and authors who had no relevant conflict of interest had the lowest percentage of positive conclusions and the highest percentage of negative and equivocal conclusions compared with studies with other sources of potential conflict of interest.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of meta-analyses published in oncology journals, multiple factors were associated with having a positive study conclusion, which suggests that future research should be performed to elucidate reasons for more favorable conclusions among studies with study or author industry funding.
| S-EPMC10293908 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5833365 | biostudies-literature